and breach of duty of public officials. On this topic, the IACHR recalls that, in keeping with consistent legal precedent of the Inter-American system, in cases of extrajudicial executions or disappearances, States have the obligation to conduct a speedy, serious, impartial and effective investigation ex officio.11 As the Commission and the Court have held, the obligation to investigate and punish human rights violations requires all actual perpetrators and masterminds involved in the crimes to be punished.12 38. Based on the claims of the petitioner, which have not been disputed by the State, three of the eight persons allegedly involved in the alleged extrajudicial executions have been found guilty. It also reported that the individual sentencing hearing was pending before the Sentencing Court. Accordingly, the Commission notes that, even though some progress has been made by the justice system, it has been alleged that more than seven years after the alleged incidents took place, the full extent of responsibility would have not been established as to actual perpetrators and masterminds and, consequently, the alleged crimes remain in partial impunity. 39. Therefore, in light of the specific profile of the instant petition and the length of time that has elapsed since the crimes alleged in the claim occurred, the Commission finds that the exception set forth in Article 46.2.c of the American Convention with regard to unwarranted delay in conducting domestic judicial proceedings is applicable, and that the prior exhaustion requirement is not enforceable. Finally, it should be noted that citing the exceptions to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for in Article 46.2 of the Convention is closely related to the establishment of possible violations of rights enshrined therein, such as the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection. Nonetheless, Article 46.2, by its nature and purpose, is an autonomous provision, in contrast to the substantive provisions of the Convention. Therefore, a determination as to whether the exceptions to the rules of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for therein are applicable in the case at hand must be made prior to and independently of the analysis of the merits, since the standard by which to assess this requirement is different from the one needed to establish a violation of Articles 8 or 25 of the Convention. It should be noted that the causes and effects that have prevented the exhaustion of domestic remedies in the instant case will be considered, to the extent that they are relevant, in any report on the merits adopted by the Commission to establish whether they do, in fact, constitute violations of the Convention. 2. Timeliness of the Petition 40. Pursuant to Article 46.1.b of the Convention, for a petition to be admitted it must be submitted within six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment exhausting domestic remedies. This rule is rendered inapplicable when the Commission finds that any of the exceptions to the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies rule, as enshrined in Article 46.2 of the Convention, is applicable. In such cases, the Commission must determine whether the petition was lodged within a reasonable period of time in keeping with Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure. 41. As was noted in the foregoing paragraphs, the Commission concluded that in the instant case the exceptions set forth in Article 46.2, subsections a) and c) of the American Convention are applicable. Taking into consideration the continuous nature of the acts allegedly constituting a violation, the alleged ineffectiveness of several remedies and complaints that were filed, the supposed misplacement of the case file and documentation for the titling of the community property, and the filing of the request for precautionary measures on June 9, 2006, which was the basis for initiating the processing of the instant case, the Commission finds that the petition was lodged within a reasonable period of time. 11 Cf. IA Court of HR. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment June 7, 2003, paragraph 112; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment August 12, 2008, paragraph 115; and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment November 27, 2008, paragraph 157. 12 IA Court of HR. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment July , 2004. Series C No. 110, par. 146; Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, par. 275; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment June 7, 2003, paragraph 186.